Driver Must Request UIM Coverage
Read full article at https://lnkd.in/ggKkFa7J, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g7Fdj2kF and at https://lnkd.in/g5HS52JW and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4750 posts.
Post 4748
Kimberly Rogers appealed from a judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court granting Lyft, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment, Allstate Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment, and Erie Insurance Exchange’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In Kimberly Rogers v. Erie Insurance Exchange; Allstate Insurance Company; and LYFT, Inc., No. 2023-CA-0447-MR, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (April 19, 2024) the Court of Appeals resolved the dispute.
FACTS
Kimberly Rogers was a driver for Lyft, Inc. (Lyft) and was involved in an automobile accident with another motor vehicle. Rogers apparently suffered substantial physical injuries. The driver of the other motor vehicle negligently caused the accident and was insured by State Farm Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm). State Farm paid Rogers the policy’s liability coverage limits. At the time of the accident, Rogers’ vehicle was insured by Erie Insurance Exchange (Erie), and Lyft carried motor vehicle insurance with Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate). Both Erie and Allstate denied Rogers’ claims for underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits.
Rogers sued Erie, Allstate, and Lyft hoping one would provide UIM coverage.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
Lyft is required by 601 KAR [Kentucky Administrative Regulations] 1:113 § 3(1) to maintain primary automobile insurance that provides coverage both for a driver who is logged into the Lyft application and for drivers engaged in a prearranged ride. Lyft is also required by 601 KAR 1:113 § 3(2) to maintain liability insurance, PIP [Personal Injury Protection] coverage, UM [Uninsured Motorist] coverage and UIM coverage for drivers who are logged into the Lyft application, who are not engaged in a prearranged ride.
Allstate insures Lyft under a policy of insurance that Defendant Allstate represents only provides the coverage required by KRS § 281.655(12) as a prearranged ride liability policy, which Allstate contends applies only when Plaintiff was carrying persons for Defendant Lyft.
Defendant Erie insures Plaintiff under a policy which it contends excludes UIM coverage for all transportation network company activities, whether as part of a pre-trip liability policy or prearranged ride liability policy.
To the extent that Defendant Allstate is contractually obligated to provide UIM coverage to Lyft drivers engaged in Lyft operations in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and to the extent that Plaintiff was engaged in Lyft operations in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Defendant Allstate is required to provide UIM coverage to the Plaintiff in an amount of at least $50,000. To the extent that it is determined that Plaintiff was not engaged in Defendant Lyft’s operations at the time of the collision Erie is required to provide UIM coverage to Plaintiff, not to exceed the limits of Plaintiff’s policy with Defendant Erie.
ANALYSIS
The Court of Appeals rejected Rogers’ contention that an ambiguity exists as to the exception to the UIM exclusion contained in the policy. Under its plain terms, the exception is triggered only if the automobile was “identified for Business use as indicated on the ‘Declarations.'” Rogers seizes upon the language on the declaration page that identified the use of her vehicle as “To work 10-14.” However, “To work” is commonly utilized to indicate that the insured drives the motor vehicle to and from work. Rogers admitted that her vehicle was not rated for business use as required under the exception to the UIM exclusion. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded that Rogers was not entitled to UIM coverage under her policy of insurance.
Rogers additionally asserted that public policy requires Lyft and/or Erie to provide UIM coverage. Generally, UIM exclusions in motor vehicle insurance policies do not offend the public policy of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. UIM coverage is only required insurance coverage when the insured requests such coverage. The insured simply may disclose the business use of her motor vehicle and request UIM coverage rated for such use. She did not.
In sum, the Court of Appeals concluded that the circuit court properly rendered summary judgment in favor of Lyft, Allstate, and Erie and the judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court was affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance, much to the surprise of some, is just a contract. It must be interpreted as written. UM and UIM coverage is available in the State of Kentucky if the insured requests the coverage and provides the insurer with information concerning the risk taken. Using a vehicle for Lyft is akin to the operation of a taxi cab and is not akin to a person who drives to and from work. By not properly asking for the coverage and advising the insurer of the risk, Ms. Rogers had no UM/UIM coverage.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg.
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Claims of Res Judicata and Procedural Default Defeats Habeas
Post 5543
Posted on November 13, 2026 by Barry Zalma
A Health Insurance Fraud Conviction Rested On Knowingly Submitting Materially False Or Misleading Claim Information With Specific Intent To Defraud.
A Health Insurance Fraud Conviction Rested On Knowingly Submitting Materially False Or Misleading Claim Information With Specific Intent To Defraud.
In Tariq Mustafa Abdulaziz v. Commissioner Of Correction, No. CV 26-5002432-S, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Tolland, Habeas Docket (October 29, 2026) Tariq Mustafa Abdulaziz submitted 114 claims for in-home, face-to-face services purportedly provided to thirty program participants during four one-week periods. The department paid Neurostrategies, Inc., $13,650.
FACTS
The defendant waived his right to a jury trial and elected a trial to the court, D'Addabbo, J. Trial occurred over the course of eight days in August, 2022. The state presented testimony from ten witnesses and introduced thirty-three exhibits into ...
Theft of Confidential Information
Post 4581
Posted on November 12, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In People Center, Inc. v. Deel, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-02576-CRB (LJC), United States District Court, N.D. California (November 7, 2026) People Center, doing business as Rippling, and Deel compete in payroll and human-resource management software. Rippling alleges that Deel and its executives recruited Rippling employee Keith O’Brien, based in Ireland, to disclose confidential information and trade secrets.
THE IRISH SUIT
Rippling sued O’Brien in Ireland and Deel in the United States. O’Brien subsequently retained separate counsel, supplied an affidavit describing the alleged espionage, and entered into a Cooperation Agreement with Rippling. In exchange for his cooperation, Rippling agreed to provide financial assistance, indemnification, and conditional dismissal of the Irish proceedings. The agreement also permitted renewed proceedings or a monetary judgment upon a material breach.
The Irish proceedings against O’Brien were dismissed...
A Proposed Amended Complaint That Includes New Factual Allegations to Remedy Pleading Deficiencies
Posted on November 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
After Dismissal Fraud Victim May Amend Complaint After Dismissal
Post 4580
If A Proposed Amendment Is Not Clearly Futile, Then Denial Of Leave To Amend Is Improper
In John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company v. Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim, Civ. No. 25-7574 (MAS)(JBD), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (November 6, 2026) John Hancock sued Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim on June 5, 2025, asserting thirteen claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and aiding and abetting fraud.
On March 26, 2026, this Court entered an order granting Caring Connections’ motion to dismiss and granting in part and denying in part the Feldheims’ motion to dismiss. The dismissed claims were dismissed without prejudice, and John Hancock timely sought leave to amend.
They also argued that the New ...
